SZABG and Anor v Minister for Immigration and Anor (No.2)

The case of SZABG and Anor v Minister for Immigration and Anor (No.2) involved a couple who sought to challenge the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal, which had affirmed the refusal of their application for protection visas. This was the third iteration of the applicants' attempts to litigate the same matter, having previously faced dismissal in the Federal Court and the High Court. The applicants sought an order compelling the respondents to show cause why relief should not be granted, exercising the Court's jurisdiction under s.476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the principles of res judicata, issue estoppel, and abuse of process precluded the applicants from re-litigating the same matter. Given the previous dismissals by both the Federal Court and the High Court, the court had to determine whether this third attempt to challenge the Tribunal's decision was permissible. The applicants' argument was essentially that they were raising new grounds for judicial review, but the court had to assess the legitimacy of this assertion in light of the established principles of judicial finality and the avoidance of re-litigation.

In dismissing the application, the court held that the principles of res judicata and issue estoppel clearly applied. It found that the applicants were attempting to relitigate the same issues that had already been determined in previous proceedings. The court noted that Jacobson J had already examined the merits of the applicants' arguments in the second set of proceedings, which was considered an "unduly favourable" course given the principles of judicial finality. The Full Court had also found that the second appeal was an abuse of process, and the High Court had refused special leave to appeal. The court held that the present application was a transparent attempt to circumvent these prior determinations, and it was therefore dismissed as incompetent. Additionally, the applicants were ordered to pay the first respondent’s costs in the sum of $5,000.